Retrospective taxation campaign
Discussion
Taxes always increase? Did I dream that bit in the budget in when that Chancellor bloke said that my top rate of tax would be going down by five per cent?
GV, how do you know how much I have been paid? Have you been peeking in my sock drawer again?
I would be happy to put my accounts* and tax return in the public domain (as occurs in Sweden and elsewhere). Would you?
GV, how do you know how much I have been paid? Have you been peeking in my sock drawer again?
I would be happy to put my accounts* and tax return in the public domain (as occurs in Sweden and elsewhere). Would you?
- just so soon as my accountant can come up with a suitable euphemism for C n H....
Breadvan72 said:
If you freeloaders got on board, GV, and the government tackled the super rich, there would be more money to go around, and tax could reduce (it might not - that would depend on the government in power, and the exigencies of circumstance). It did, notably, in the 1980s, for various reasons, some of them ideological.
Do you really believe that?There is only one way to slim anything down and that is too starve it, Gov'ts most especially.
The Gov't is NEVER going to tackle the super-rich, they folded after dinner with Vodafone and that is the way it is, lose Vodafone, garner more from the proles.
I thought the study of Juris Prudence [syllogism] struck out from the Temple those that can't think straight!
My mistake.
Breadvan72 said:
Taxes always increase? Did I dream that bit in the budget in when that Chancellor bloke said that my top rate of tax would be going down by five per cent?
GV, how do you know how much I have been paid? Have you been peeking in my sock drawer again?
I would be happy to put my accounts* and tax return in the public domain (as occurs in Sweden and elsewhere). Would you?
Oh gawd...GV, how do you know how much I have been paid? Have you been peeking in my sock drawer again?
I would be happy to put my accounts* and tax return in the public domain (as occurs in Sweden and elsewhere). Would you?
- just so soon as my accountant can come up with a suitable euphemism for C n H....
...and nothing else increased to cover it and take more.
Are you drunk by any chance?
Top rate of tax was once 95%. It's now lower.
Standard rate of tax used to be higher too...
Standard rate of tax used to be higher too...
- ****************************************************
Gene Vincent appears to have as selective a view of history as he does of law. Luckily, I did not waste my youth studying jurisprudence (typed thus, GV, and "to" is not spelled "too"; HTH). I studied history instead before doing the barrister thang. Some of my colleagues in chambers are old enough to recall the days of 95% tax, because they were paying it, and, senile though they may be, are pretty sure that tax went down significantly for them and others in the 1980s.
I don't regard all government as kleptocracy, but then I'm not one of the standard PH anarcho-solipsists. Crikey, I even slow down for horses - whimp!
I don't regard all government as kleptocracy, but then I'm not one of the standard PH anarcho-solipsists. Crikey, I even slow down for horses - whimp!
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 17:53
car95 said:
Top rate of tax was once 95%. It's now lower.
Standard rate of tax used to be higher too...
Yeah... goodness me.Standard rate of tax used to be higher too...
- ****************************************************
Taxation per head has never in UK history reduced, it has gone up and down against GDP, but not the mean for the individual.
Well, all of my old colleagues must be hallucinating about the 1980s then, as must I be when I look at my own tax estimates for the next year or two. I am aware of all the other grabs and gotchas, but income tax does go down as well as up. There is an argument that the UK has recently been undertaxed relative to the level of expectation placed on public services. Of course, those services could be run better, but those are wider debates, beyond the scope of the present good natured ramble.
Breadvan72 said:
Gene Vincent appears to have as selective a view of history as he does of law. Luckily, I did not waste my youth studying jurisprudence (typed thus, GV, and "to" is not spelled "too"; HTH). I studied history instead before doing the barrister thang. Some of my colleagues in chambers are old enough to recall the days of 95% tax, because they were paying it, and, senile though they may be, are pretty sure that tax went down significantly for them and others in the 1980s.
I don't regard all government as kleptocracy, but then I'm not one of the standard PH anarcho-solipsists. Crikey, I even slow down for horses - whimp!
I prefer to think of her as a strict mistress... Juris Prudence. But you wouldn't know that, would you.I don't regard all government as kleptocracy, but then I'm not one of the standard PH anarcho-solipsists. Crikey, I even slow down for horses - whimp!
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 25th April 17:53
It is never a waste of time and the product of that choice is in your part of this debate.
Breadvan72 said:
Well, all of my old colleagues must be hallucinating about the 1980s then, as must I be when I look at my own tax estimates for the next year or two. I am aware of all the other grabs and gotchas, but income tax does go down as well as up. There is an argument that the UK has recently been undertaxed relative to the level of expectation placed on public services. Of course, those services could be run better, but those are wider debates, beyond the scope of the present good natured ramble.
No no no, they just happened to be on the 95% rate, whilst the proles were on much less thanks to better allowances and less indirect taxation.You have to be drunk, you keep falling over!
Go have a look how many days you have to work to slough of the shackle of the state each year, this is for the average man, not the over-dinnered and over-imbibed Temple dwellers you cavort about with.
Elroy Blue said:
Nope. You know very well what I mean.
Putting cash into an ISA, in full view of the financial authorities is NOT the same as hiding it away and hoping nobody notices it. Nor is it the same as my acquaintance, who has a little pet dog, but claims all it's food and vets bills as it's a 'guard dog'. Above board? Legal? Morally right?
If you're hiding money from tax authorities then it's probably evasion not avoidance, which is entirely different.Putting cash into an ISA, in full view of the financial authorities is NOT the same as hiding it away and hoping nobody notices it. Nor is it the same as my acquaintance, who has a little pet dog, but claims all it's food and vets bills as it's a 'guard dog'. Above board? Legal? Morally right?
And the guard dog thing is evasion too.
Gene Vincent said:
Yeah... goodness me.
Taxation per head has never in UK history reduced, it has gone up and down against GDP, but not the mean for the individual.
Note the words: the mean for the individual. If you meant something else, you should have said something else. Taxation per head has never in UK history reduced, it has gone up and down against GDP, but not the mean for the individual.
My view of the State is influenced party by Hobbes, but mainly by Locke, and I don't regard most of what it does as imposing shackles. On the contrary, the State is a device through which we obtain and maintain freedom. Otherwise, we might as well all carry big knives. Taxation is, very broadly, a royalty on economic activity (and the fruits thereof, such as property), paid in return for the provision of such things as law courts, and much else besides. The level of the royalty, and the selection and cost of the much else besides, are matters for debate.
By the way, the average man pays less tax as a percentage of income than do people who stagger about the Inns of Court, so your rhetoric is somewhat misdirected.
Do the campaign have you as their advocate/PR guy? You have such charm and winning ways. What could possibly go wrong?
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 18:15
Breadvan72 said:
You said: "the mean for the individual' . Precision in language is important to real (as opposed to internet) lawyers.
My view of the State is influenced party by Hobbes, but mainly by Locke, and I don't regard most of what it does as imposing shackles. Taxation is, very broadly, a royalty on economic activity (and the fruits thereof, such as property), paid in return for the provision of such things as law courts, and much else besides. The level of the royalty, and the selection and cost of the much else besides, are matters for debate.
Let me help you back to your feet again, upsy-daisy.My view of the State is influenced party by Hobbes, but mainly by Locke, and I don't regard most of what it does as imposing shackles. Taxation is, very broadly, a royalty on economic activity (and the fruits thereof, such as property), paid in return for the provision of such things as law courts, and much else besides. The level of the royalty, and the selection and cost of the much else besides, are matters for debate.
The term is correct.
Not only did you not study little miss Juris Prudence, you didn't do much maths either...
Your view of the state is of no concern now, we know it already, you have made it abundantly clear.
Now try to stay on your feet and stay off the Pink Gins.
Breadvan72 said:
Do the campaign have you as their advocate/PR guy? You have such charm and winning ways. What could possibly go wrong?
With your endorsement I might just apply.Breadvan72 said:
Tell you what, you do the maths, I'll do the Latin (OK, the English too); what a team. Your view of the State appears to make Bakunin look like the Chairman of the local rates committee.
The trouble with Grammar school boys is they are desperate to be accepted so are stultifying in their approach to English, whereas I will play fast and loose with it.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 25th April 18:30
Joking apart, have you ever visited one? They do vary widely, and the failure of successive governments since the war to deliver consistency in State primary and secondary education is an indictment of the UK; but some of them are much better than many suppose. I was lucky that my school was in a leafy suburb in the 1970s, but I have recently been giving some seminars and careers talks in some inner London comps which serve very socially and ethnically mixed catchment areas. I expected to be pessimistic, but the experience made me (cautiously) optimistic.
Breadvan72 said:
Joking apart, have you ever visited one? They do vary widely, and the failure of successive governments since the war to deliver consistency in State primary and secondary education is an indictment of the UK; but some of them are much better than many suppose. I was lucky that my school was in a leafy suburb in the 1970s, but I have recently been giving some seminars and careers talks in some inner London comps which serve very socially and ethnically mixed catchment areas. I expected to be pessimistic, but the experience made me (cautiously) optimistic.
I have never and will never run for public office so don't feel the need to do a 'Cameron' or 'Osborne' to show my ability to 'get down' with the masses. It's demeaning and ridiculous.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff